Is practice good enough? Retrieval benefits students with ADHD but does not compensate for poor encoding in unmedicated students.

Introduction: A significant proportion of currently enrolled college students receive support for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and these students are often at risk of academic failure. Retrieval practice or self-testing is an effective, accessible, and affordable tool for improving academic performance. Three recent studies found conflicting results with regards to the effectiveness of retrieval practice in this population. Methods: The present study compared 36 individuals with ADHD to 36 controls. Participants studied Swahili-English word pairs that varied in difficulty. Half of the pairs were repeatedly studied, and the other half repeatedly tested. Results: On a final test, all participants showed a benefit of retrieval practice relative to restudy and participant status did not moderate the effect. However, unmedicated individuals with ADHD performed worse overall, both during the encoding phase and on the final test, whereas medicated participants were not significantly different from controls. Discussion: An examination of self-reported encoding strategies found unmedicated participants used fewer deep strategies at encoding, consistent with prior work on ADHD and memory. Although retrieval practice is effective in this group, improved strategy use may be necessary to ensure performance that is fully equivalent to that of students without ADHD.

Reading the news on Twitter: Source and item memory for social media in younger and older adults.

BACKGROUND: Social media content is well-remembered, possibly because of its personal relevance and gossipy nature. It is unclear whether the mnemonic advantage of social media extends to a population less familiar with these platforms and whether knowing the content is from social media sources influences memory. This study examined how the presentation of news-like content in social media affected both item and source memory across two age groups. Younger adults (n = 42) and older adults (n = 32) studied tweets and news headlines that appeared in the format of Twitter posts or CNN headlines - these items were designed to be either congruent (e.g., tweets formatted as Twitter posts) or incongruent (e.g., tweets formatted as CNN headlines). RESULTS: For item memory, both age groups correctly recognized tweets more than headlines. Source identification was more accurate when format and content were congruent than incongruent. Signal detection analyses indicated that the source advantage for congruent items was largely driven by a bias to select the format that matched the content's original source and that this tendency was stronger in older adults. CONCLUSIONS: These results replicate previous literature on the mnemonic advantage of social media content. Although both younger and older adults remembered the content of social media better than the content of news sources, older adults were more sensitive than younger adults to congruency effects in source memory. These findings suggest that older adults rely more on their prior knowledge of conventional language and style in traditional and social media.

The benefits of retrieval practice depend on item difficulty and intelligence.

The authors examined whether individual differences in fluid intelligence (gF) modulate the testing effect. Participants studied Swahili-English word pairs and repeatedly studied half the pairs or attempted retrieval, with feedback, for the remaining half. Word pairs were easy or difficult to learn. Overall, participants showed a benefit of testing over restudy. However, almost 1/3 of the sample had a negative testing effect and benefitted more from restudy than testing, as well as performing better overall. These individuals self-reported less use of shallower encoding strategies than positive testing effect participants but did not differ in other dimensions. For individuals with a positive testing effect, difficulty had differential effects on participants who scored high or low on a measure of gF, with high gF participants showing larger testing effects for difficult over easy items, whereas low gF participants showed the opposite. Working memory performance was not related to the magnitude of the testing effect; however, vocabulary knowledge revealed a similar pattern as gF, with higher vocabulary associated with a testing effect for difficult but not easy items. This suggests that the benefit of retrieval practice varies with item difficulty and participant abilities. Thus, recommendations to engage in retrieval practice should take into consideration the interactive effects of to-be-learned materials and individual differences in the learners. (PsycINFO Database Record